<quoted text>If Obamacare is so great then why are so many against it? Nothing in life is free. Healthcare cost what healthcare cost. If millions get free healthcare or at least at a reduced rate someone has to pick up all or the rest of the tab. It will be those who the government deems has enough disposable income to afford it whether or not they actually do have enough to afford it. Then you pile higher income taxes on that to pay for the out of control spending and it leaves middle America in the same poverty boat as the poor in this country. The healthcare is just like the rest of Obama's policies, if it was a success the economy would show it. The Jobs Recovery Act would have put people back to work and unemployment would not be on the rise again but it didn't and it is. So what does our president say to calm fears? "I guess the shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as we expected", and he wonders why people have no confidence in his policies. Businesses do what they always do when things are uncertain, they go into self preservation mode and minimize expenses. The easiest expense to eliminate is labor. What is the democratic government's counter to this? Higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy. All this does is cause businesses to tighten up more. This type of governing hurts the middle class the most because they mostly work for someone else and the raised taxes are taken directly out of their checks leaving no power to the working middle class to control how much money they get to keep. This is when liberal democrats go into coverup mode by creating bad feelings between the employer and employee with class warfare. It's what is currently happening and it is just another reason to get Obama out of office. The means may change but the principles of success remain the same so your argument that voting for Obama keeps you from getting "mired" in the past doesn't hold water. But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

"If Obamacare is so great then why are so many against it"

The poll finds that 40 percent of those surveyed said they support the law, while 41 percent oppose it. Just after the November congressional elections, opposition stood at 47 percent and support was 38 percent.http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-7251893.h...

Kaiser's most recent survey, conducted in early March, finds that roughly as many Americans rate the law favorably (41 percent) as rate it unfavorably (40 percent), although over the last year they have typically found negative ratings exceeding positive ones by a few percentage points.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/obam...

You might ask yourself, If Obamacare is so BAD then why are so many FOR it?

The Senate approved a two-year transportation reauthorization proposal in March, but a number of House conservatives have objected. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the conservative Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).

Boxer and Inhofe are about as far apart as you can get politically, yet they agreed on this bill.

The Speaker of the House will not bring the transportation bill to the floor. This bill would create thousands of construction jobs.

We just had a up tick in unemployment, if you go to the web site of the Bureau of labor, you will see a majority of those jobs lost were construction jobs.

ANY of you anti Obama people care to tell me the benefit of this Non Action of the Republican leadership?

<quoted text>"If Obamacare is so great then why are so many against it"The poll finds that 40 percent of those surveyed said they support the law, while 41 percent oppose it. Just after the November congressional elections, opposition stood at 47 percent and support was 38 percent.http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-7251893.h...Kaiser's most recent survey, conducted in early March, finds that roughly as many Americans rate the law favorably (41 percent) as rate it unfavorably (40 percent), although over the last year they have typically found negative ratings exceeding positive ones by a few percentage points.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/obam...You might ask yourself, If Obamacare is so BAD then why are so many FOR it?

That is the problem with polls. You can never put too much stock in them. If you choose to put stock in them then stay away from left wing or right wing sources. You always jump to left wing sources, most of them far left. Here is an example. Rasmussen reports, which is an independent polling firm, show that 55% of likely voters want the law repealed and that is stronger than just not liking it. The results of any poll depends on what you control for which determines who you can ask. If I asked 1000 likely voters from the KKK who they are going to vote for in the 2012 presidential election what do you think the results would be? I could take the results to a national paper or tv company and the headline would be "Romney a sure bet to beat Obama in November 100%-0% says likely voters". Do you really think that left wing sources, who have admitted wanting to help Obama get re-elected, will poll fairly? Statistics 101: You can control the outcome of any poll by what you control for. You are a fool if you don't learn this one thing about any poll and you will continue to look bad to anyone who already knows and accepts this fact of polls.

The Senate approved a two-year transportation reauthorization proposal in March, but a number of House conservatives have objected. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the conservative Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).Boxer and Inhofe are about as far apart as you can get politically, yet they agreed on this bill.The Speaker of the House will not bring the transportation bill to the floor. This bill would create thousands of construction jobs.We just had a up tick in unemployment, if you go to the web site of the Bureau of labor, you will see a majority of those jobs lost were construction jobs.ANY of you anti Obama people care to tell me the benefit of this Non Action of the Republican leadership?

Wasteful spending for one. The original proposed six year bill fell short by $12 billion per year so they cut it to two years and shrank the overall bill to $109 billion still leaving a $6 billion shortfall of funds. The only mechanism that was listed to bridge that gap was an increas in the federal tax on gas. How do you think that will go over with voters? You do realize that we have to pay for these programs with tax payer dollars don't you. With real unemployment at 25%+ tax dollars are in short order.

<quoted text>It took 1 1/2 years to get health care reform passed. Just ask the Clintons how amazing it is that Obama got it done at all. It's a shame he had to spend that much time on it, but he fought hard. In the long run, it will save money. Any major change will cost more upon implementation before the savings start showing. So we needed to do it to avoid the massive costs later. It's like getting your oil changed to keep from replacing your engine in the future. You may not be able to afford it, but if you don't do it, the costs will be many times the cost of the initial oil change. Obama is very intelligent at being president. He just seems to be one of the few people with vision. By the way, vision is a major quality of a good leader. It's just a shame he's in the minority in DC. All of our politicians need to have vision, but it just doesn't happen that way. Maybe it's because the voters don't pay attention. I'm voting Obama. You can choose to stay mired in the past if you wish. America gives you that right. It's a changing world. I suggest you pay closer attention.

<quoted text>If Obamacare is so great then why are so many against it? Nothing in life is free. Healthcare cost what healthcare cost. If millions get free healthcare or at least at a reduced rate someone has to pick up all or the rest of the tab. It will be those who the government deems has enough disposable income to afford it whether or not they actually do have enough to afford it. Then you pile higher income taxes on that to pay for the out of control spending and it leaves middle America in the same poverty boat as the poor in this country. The healthcare is just like the rest of Obama's policies, if it was a success the economy would show it. The Jobs Recovery Act would have put people back to work and unemployment would not be on the rise again but it didn't and it is. So what does our president say to calm fears? "I guess the shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as we expected", and he wonders why people have no confidence in his policies. Businesses do what they always do when things are uncertain, they go into self preservation mode and minimize expenses. The easiest expense to eliminate is labor. What is the democratic government's counter to this? Higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy. All this does is cause businesses to tighten up more. This type of governing hurts the middle class the most because they mostly work for someone else and the raised taxes are taken directly out of their checks leaving no power to the working middle class to control how much money they get to keep. This is when liberal democrats go into coverup mode by creating bad feelings between the employer and employee with class warfare. It's what is currently happening and it is just another reason to get Obama out of office. The means may change but the principles of success remain the same so your argument that voting for Obama keeps you from getting "mired" in the past doesn't hold water. But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

" The Jobs Recovery Act would have put people back to work and unemployment would not be on the rise again but it didn't"

''''''''''PANTS ON FIRE''''''''''

One year after the stimulus, several independent macroeconomic firms, including Moody's and IHS Global Insight, estimated that the stimulus saved or created 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs and forecast a total impact of 2.5 million jobs saved by the time the stimulus is completed

But it’s just false to say that the stimulus created "no jobs" or "failed to save and create jobs" or "has done nothing to reduce unemployment" – or similar claims that the stimulus did not produce any jobs.

As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."

Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive.http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stim...

<quoted text>And it takes more intelligence than you possess to knnow that no one is harassing you, pointing out your obvious deficiencies is not harasment. Watch the economics of Obama in action this week, look at how well our ducationsystems are doing with his leadership, find me anyone in the medical community (someone who is actually in the community not some academic) that agrees with the president's health plan. You are not being harassed, but your ideas are ruining a country.

&#65279;&#65279;&# 65279;&#65279;&#65279; &#65279;&#65279;&# 65279;Mitt Romney claims President Barack Obama’s spending amounts to an “inferno.” But who is really responsible for the huge jump that took place in fiscal 2009? Here are some undisputed facts: &#9632;Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009. &#9632;President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.” &#9632;Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion). &#9632;On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating:“CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.” &#9632;CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone). &#9632;Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.